You are responsible for your actions regardless of how drunk you are. You are responsible when you operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated, likewise you are responsible when you have sex while drunk.

The only time you are freed from blame is when someone intentionally impairs your judgement without your knowledge. Such as a spiked drink.

The jury was shown two videos of police interviews in which the woman, who was 19 at the time of the alleged attack, described drinking four double vodkas and lemonade and a shot of Sambucca at Rhyl's Zu Bar in May 2011.

You don't get to use "I was drunk" as a defense unless someone added alcohol without your consent. Even then the defense would be shoddy at best, as alcohol isn't exactly without flavor and side effects itself.

You are responsible for your actions regardless of how drunk you are. You are responsible when you operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated, likewise you are responsible when you have sex while drunk.

I was about to say "good point", but then I realised that motor vehicles don't actively try to take advantage of drunk people

Who I feel pissed for at the moment is his club Sheffield United. They're battling for 2nd place with their local rivals Sheffield Wednesday to get promoted, still 4 points ahead with 3 games to go.. but he's been their best striker, 35 goals he's scored... their next best scorer has 12.

Definitely was one of Wales up and coming talents and he's just wasted that.

Who I feel pissed for at the moment is his club Sheffield United. They're battling for 2nd place with their local rivals Sheffield Wednesday to get promoted, still 4 points ahead with 3 games to go.. but he's been their best striker, 35 goals he's scored... their next best scorer has 12.

Definitely was one of Wales up and coming talents and he's just wasted that.

are you seriously complaining that a sports team lost a player rather than the fact that someone was raped

You are responsible for your actions regardless of how drunk you are. You are responsible when you operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated, likewise you are responsible when you have sex while drunk.

The only time you are freed from blame is when someone intentionally impairs your judgement without your knowledge. Such as a spiked drink.

You don't get to use "I was drunk" as a defense unless someone added alcohol without your consent. Even then the defense would be shoddy at best, as alcohol isn't exactly without flavor and side effects itself.

This is just about what I was trying to say. But alot clearer imo. Atleast I don't feel such a heartless bastard now

did this woman kill or injure anyone? no. "responsibility" means not hurting other people, not protecting yourself.

It remains illegal, and rightfully so, to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated even without hurting anyone. The law also exists to protect you from yourself.

Having sex and then making claims of rape later because you can't remember the events leading up to the sex later as a result of you being completely wasted, is quite damaging to the other human being.

While I am sure that it is also quite unpleasant for the person who can't recall the sex, having sex you regret is perfectly possible even while sober. Either way, assuming no physical or chemical coercion was used, you are responsible for the actions that resulted in having sex.

victim blaming, saying she's lying
the worst part is that it's coming from normally respectable members (and even mods? blegh)
I expect this stuff, but I try to think the majority of people will disagree with it.

victim blaming, saying she's lying
the worst part is that it's coming from normally respectable members (and even mods? blegh)
I expect this stuff, but I try to think the majority of people will disagree with it.

No, victim blaming is something else.

Had she been wearing sexual attractive attire, forced to have sex, and then been blamed for having worn the attire, THAT would be victim blaming.

What we are suggesting is that she isn't a victim. She just regrets having sex, even though it was consensual. You can't voluntarily take a substance that alters your judgement in a very understood fashion, and then use that as a defense of your actions.

victim blaming, saying she's lying
the worst part is that it's coming from normally respectable members (and even mods? blegh)
I expect this stuff, but I try to think the majority of people will disagree with it.

She got drunk and had sex with someone.

Unless someone has proof of drugging then it is her fault just as much as his.

Look, here's the long and short of it as far as I'm concerned. If her drinks were spiked, then of course this is rape. If she got herself drunk and then explicitly consented to having sex with them while in that altered state of mind, this is not rape. Like some people have been saying, in the eyes of the law you are fully responsible for all actions undertaken while under the influence.

Now, none of us can possibly know for certain whether anybody spiked her drinks; it might have happened, but since I'm pretty sure "innocent until proven guilty" is a thing, these men should be held innocent.

Had she been wearing sexual attractive attire, forced to have sex, and then been blamed for having worn the attire, THAT would be victim blaming.

What we are suggesting is that she isn't a victim. She just regrets having sex, even though it was consensual. You can't voluntarily take a substance that alters your judgement in a very understood fashion, and then use that as a defense of your actions.

It remains illegal, and rightfully so, to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated even without hurting anyone.

probably because you could potentially hurt or kill other people.

The law also exists to protect you from yourself.

that is debatable.

Having sex and then making claims of rape later because you can't remember the events leading up to the sex later as a result of you being completely wasted, is quite damaging to the other human being.

yeah, and having sex with a drunk person when they're totally out of it is pretty fuckin damaging too

While I am sure that it is also quite unpleasant for the person who can't recall the sex

yeah no goddamn shit it'd be unpleasant. can you imagine how scary it'd be just waking up next to someone and not remembering a thing? I know I'd be absolutely terrified, and that's speaking as a dude. I could have gotten someone pregnant, I could have been infected with an STI, they might have taken pictures, all manner of nasty shit might have happened.

Either way, assuming no physical or chemical coercion was used, you are responsible for the actions that resulted in having sex.

the only way this guy gets off the hook for me is if he was drunk too. it's shitty that we don't know for certain. this comes back to the whole rehabilitation based justice system that I was talking about - it's definitely a more important issue than this useless speculation that we're all doing here. five years of imprisonment and punishment isn't a reasonable sentence for most crimes.

If she is staggering around drunk, she can't consent to sex, end of story. The article says there is video of her stumbling drunk with one of those guys BEFORE the sex occurred. If true that means these two guys knew she was wasted and took advantage of it.

When you're in an altered mental state you can't consent to sex, that's the law. People can argue that it shouldn't be the law, but until it is changed it IS the law.

If she is staggering around drunk, she can't consent to sex, end of story. The article says there is video of her stumbling drunk with one of those guys BEFORE the sex occurred. If true that means these two guys knew she was wasted and took advantage of it.

When you're in an altered mental state you can't consent to sex, that's the law. People can argue that it shouldn't be the law, but until it is changed it IS the law.

I am not arguing against the fact that the guys took advantage of her in some form or other, just that if she was staggering drunk before she got picked up, that means there was 0% chance they made here any drunker than she was, meaning it was 100% her choice in ending up in that state.
She was old enough to know what alcohol does, and what her limits are, and chose to put herself in a vunerable position.

Like I will not wake up next to a girl worrying that I might have got her pregnant because I will not do anything like that drunk because I know what alcohol does and I know my limits before I will do anything silly. You don't need to get totally smashed to have a good night out, anyway.

I'm not saying this about the rape, just in general. Don't want to have the chance of waking up next to someone you have no idea about? Don't drink that much. If you CHOOSE to drink so much you loose control of yourself, then you have to accept the consequenses.

I don't understand where they get the idea that the men were not drunk. If she can't give consent that holds up in court while inebriated, neither can they. If nobody gave consent, this can be interpreted as either group mutual rape or mentally incapacitated people fucking.

I know i'll get boxes for this, but this sort of just popped into my head.
So according to law a women can't be responsible for consenting or not if she's drunk, but if someone does anything else while drunk like commit a crime they are still 100% responsible.
I don't know about anyone else but I see a huge contradiction in the law right there

aka "You weren't actually raped, because you consented. Which is the polar opposite of rape. Therefore you aren't a victim."

Unless you take the stance that NOBODY can legally consent while drunk, similar in fashion to how minors can never legally consent. In which case all sex while drunk is rape because they can't legally provide their own consent.

If she is staggering around drunk, she can't consent to sex, end of story. The article says there is video of her stumbling drunk with one of those guys BEFORE the sex occurred. If true that means these two guys knew she was wasted and took advantage of it.

When you're in an altered mental state you can't consent to sex, that's the law. People can argue that it shouldn't be the law, but until it is changed it IS the law.

I generally don't really like the whole "it's the law" argument for cases of right and wrong, as the law is mutable and should be based on morality, not morality being based on the law.

That said, the law has a point here: people can't consent when drunk enough. If you're so drunk that you can't even remember what you did while drunk, then your mind is so altered that you can't consent.
And drinking that much only means you consent to drinking, not "anything that could happen while drinking". If you commit any crimes, you are still responsible, but not as responsible as if you had done them while sober. (It's more accidental and unintentional.) However, if someone else does something to you while you're in that state, then it is that person's fault, not your fault. You don't automatically consent to anything that happens while drunk, because you don't know what will happen. You can't consent to something if you don't even know what it is. And, once you do know what it is, you don't automatically consent if you're in an altered state, because you may not do it otherwise.

I do think that the punishment / jailtime / whatever for the guys involved shouldn't be 5 years, because they thought she was consenting, and they were buzzed themselves, but they still need something, preferably community service and some way to make sure that they don't pick up chicks who are drunk out of their mind.

Also, only about 5% (or less) of rape cases are false accusations.

The best studies, where the rape allegations have been studied in detail, suggest a rate of false reports of somewhere between 2% and 10%. The most comprehensive study, conducted by the British Home Office in 2005, found a rate of 2.5% for false accusations of rape. The best U.S. investigation, the 2008 “Making a Difference” study, found a 6.8% rate.

10% is the upper limit. The best study found 2.5%, and the best US one found 6.8%. Note, the "Best US one" means second best or worse. It may be the 10th best, it may be the 5th, it may be the 15th. It depends on the studies done by other countries.
Even if the US one is actually the most correct, it's still only about 1 in 14. The best study, though found 1 in 40. And that's ignoring the fact that many rapes don't get reported to the police, partially due to the belief that false rape accusations are rampant and fear that they won't be believed.

okay you can take your crazy ass one off case. it won't change this statistic

20% of approximately 5,000 women on 138 college campuses experienced rape during the course of their lifetime.

one in five women are apparently raped in their lifetime, and you're worried about the random dotted cases where some psycho inexplicably ruins another's life. just because something's terrifying doesn't necessarily mean it's worth concerning yourself with. do you worry about shark attacks and serial killers in your spare time too?

furthermore, what reason would anyone ever have to do that? there are a shitload of ways to frame someone, but everyone is so fixated on rape it's unreal

Rape is an incredibly easy way for a girl to frame someone, mainly stemming from the fact the act of sex can be legal or illegal depending on agreement between the parties. It does not involve any external objects (a weapon, stolen property).

Here are two examples:
-Girl A invites Guy A round for the night, they both drink a small amount, and consensually have sex. The next morning, Guy A goes home. Later, the police arrest him and take him to court on allegations of rape.

-Guy B persuades reluctantly girl B to let him come round. Guy B persuades girl B to drink heavily, waits until she is out of it then has sex with her. Guy B tells her in the morning not to tell anyone or else and goes home.
Later, the police arrest him on allegations of rape.

Both circumstances can happen without any other witnesses, and provided Girl B was not physically assaulted, there may be no physical difference between the girls.

Both guys plead not guilty.

There is really no real way to judge the cases apart from what each guy and girl has to say.

This makes rape a very hard crime to either prove or disprove., and people do tend to side with the female by default.

I don't understand where they get the idea that the men were not drunk. If she can't give consent that holds up in court while inebriated, neither can they. If nobody gave consent, this can be interpreted as either group mutual rape or mentally incapacitated people fucking.

It's about levels of drunkenness. If they had been just as drunk as she was, then they wouldn't be to blame. However, they weren't, so they are.
If it had been everyone drunk out of their minds, it would be unfortunate, but nobody would be taking advantage of each other. If one person is buzzed, but still clearly in control of themselves, and they pick a drunk-out-of-their-mind girl to have sex with because "she's easy", they're taking advantage of her state.

I know i'll get boxes for this, but this sort of just popped into my head.
So according to law a women can't be responsible for consenting or not if she's drunk, but if someone does anything else while drunk like commit a crime they are still 100% responsible.
I don't know about anyone else but I see a huge contradiction in the law right there

There's a difference between doing something and someone doing something to you. In this case, convincing her to have sex.
If you hurt someone while drunk, it's your fault.
If you're hurt while drunk, it's the perpetrator's fault.

Why is it that every time we get a story about a women being raped people instantly thinks she is lying?

I don't think she's lying, but just recently we have had 2 cases here in Denmark where the girl admitted after the judgement (like a year after), that she actually agreed to it. I'm not saying that this man isn't guilty, but saying that "it was the alkohol talking" is in most cases a way to justify something that you maybe didn't really want to do. And why is it more important when it's a woman? A drunk man might sleep with a girl against his proper judgement as well - these cases should be spread out equally between the two sexes, and not so one-sided. That isn't necessarily the girls lying, and maybe the problem simply is that it's very taboo for men getting raped, in any manor.

I'm sure this case was handled the right way, but that doesn't change that we have a problem with the legislation and the way society perceives rape cases.

There's a difference between doing something and someone doing something to you. In this case, convincing her to have sex.
If you hurt someone while drunk, it's your fault.
If you're hurt while drunk, it's the perpetrator's fault.

But the problem is that through the eyes of the law, if a woman has sex while drunk she is a victim of rape whatever the circumstances.
I mean if people are responsible for their actions while drunk then women should be responible for consenting, it really has nothing to do with the other person involved. In general if a women doesn't consent the guy doesn't have sex with her...

The way I see it, if you're responsible for getting drunk you're responsible for whatever you do while drunk

see my post above for why you have your priorities the wrong way round

like, I appreciate the long post but it's simply misplaced concern

I understand where you are coming from, but a false accusation of rape can not only be damaging to yourself, but things around you. For instance, if you run a small business, and you get injured in as shark attack, life will be shit for a while but it'l still be livable. Once your name is linked with rape, it's virtually impossible to remove it, even if you are proven not guilty, and your business would go belly up.

Why this is of such of a worry to me is because I have been framed for something by a girl (not rape, but being a stalker. she pretended to like me, and texted me to go round to her house, and told me she'd be out in a minute, but instead she took a picture through the window, and said I was stalking her and i'd been waiting there for hours. I had no idea why she would do this, but it ruined my reputation at school, and in the end I had to move to another area (even though I had the texts to prove against the allegations, everyone went on the girls side).

I was alot younger then, but this has strongly affected my life, and when I did get a proper girlfriend, despite having no reason to doubt her, it took me a while to gain to trust her to do anything with her because I am worried the next day I might suddenly be a rapist. I know its a stupid fear but its just from the past that I can't get out of the back of my head.

I know it sounded a bit like a sob story but just wanted people to see why I worry more about it than serial killers.

okay you can take your crazy ass one off case. it won't change this statistic

one in five women are apparently raped in their lifetime, and you're worried about the random dotted cases where some psycho inexplicably ruins another's life. just because something's terrifying doesn't necessarily mean it's worth concerning yourself with. do you worry about shark attacks and serial killers in your spare time too?

I totally agree, but the definition of "rape" can still be discussed - is consensual sex while being affected by alcohol consensual? It is a grayzone, and it's trouble to both the victim and the rapist, and in these cases there might actually just be two victims. If look at the wikipedia statistics you posted, most for the studies are about women, and if you read down the page, there's this quote: "point to a widespread denial of women as potential sexual aggressors that could work to obscure the true dimensions of the problem."
This is a problem. The much larger part of rape cases includes a woman as the victim, but if we look at these cases where both persons have consumed alcohol in large quantities, I'd say that largest share of the cases where men get "raped" (in the sense that they wake up the morning after, not really remembering saying yes to this), go unreported - same for women, but their share is by all means larger.

I totally agree, but the definition of "rape" can still be discussed - is consensual sex while being affected by alcohol consensual? It is a grayzone, and it's trouble to both the victim and the rapist, and in these cases there might actually just be two victims. If look at the wikipedia statistics you posted, most for the studies are about women, and if you read down the page, there's this quote: "point to a widespread denial of women as potential sexual aggressors that could work to obscure the true dimensions of the problem."
This is a problem. The much larger part of rape cases includes a woman as the victim, but if we look at these cases where both persons have consumed alcohol in large quantities, I'd say that largest share of the cases where men get "raped" (in the sense that they wake up the morning after, not really remembering saying yes to this), go unreported - same for women, but their share is by all means larger.

Also speaking from the experience of knowing men who have been either raped through circumstance [like alcohol] or violently, through men or women, the vast majority of them would never tell a soul because when you reveal that, no one in society knows how to handle you anymore. Speaking from what I've heard from the few who have, the police mock you and generally don't take anything you say very seriously, the hospitals scorn you, your parents are ashamed of you, your siblings can't talk to you without looking down, and so many aspects of society change for the male victim that it is almost worth it to suffer alone, or only with the closest friends who'll hold your secret to the grave.

If the drink was actually spiked then he deserves it. But if she was simply drunk to the pulp and consented but did not remember then imo he should be free.
And if she lied about the situation, she should be the one who gets jailed.

Was gonna make a post but this is pretty much what I was going to say.
So far from what I've read into it it seems like she just wants to fuck him over, maybe for fame or something I don't know, I've not read any evidence as to say it was actually rape.
I'm sure this is something that happens all the time with people on nights out.

Would it be the same if this was a guy who woke up naked and thought "oh fuck what happened last night?" or even if this guy wasn't a footballer?

But, if there's something I've missed and she was spiked or something then I hope he drops that soap hard.